wenglund Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Exactly. I agree. But what that proves is that you experience choice.It has nothing to do whether someone's version of a theory called "compatiblism" is true OR false. So why argue about whether it is or not?It's not relevant to your life. It's also not relevant to your life to worry about whether or not somebody's DEFINITION of "omniscience" is "true"- something you can't experience and can't possibly know anyway- or "false".Neither is "determinism" whatever that is supposed to mean, relevant to the fact that you make choices all day long. Nor is "libertarian free will" - whatever that means really, since it has various definitions- nor is the question of whether or not what somebody calls "libertarian free will" is compatible or not compatible with what someone else means by "omniscient" and whether or not that word applies to who you directly experience in your testimony as "God".To may way of seeing it there ARE philosophical problems which are important- but just not those. For me, the only philosophical problems which are important are ones which mix people up about what is really pretty simple stuff.There is a whole school of "philosophy" (at least they inhabit offices for the most part, and get paid by university philosophy departments and write articles in philosophy journals) dedicated to putting philosophers out of business for the most part- Pragmatists, and Anti-realists and Wittgensteinians, are all in the same general ballpark and that is where I find myself as well.Yaaaahhhhsss. Some times the wisest thing we can do for ourselves is to step away from the quagmire of "long history of ideas" and focus instead on figuring out what works.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
zeez Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Discovery amidst uncertainty is the sweet nectar of life. Too bad God will never get that. I feel so sorry for God.
zerinus Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Discovery amidst uncertainty is the sweet nectar of life. Too bad God will never get that. I feel so sorry for God.You make that discovery with the help of God. Perhaps His satisfaction comes from helping you make that discovery.
Log Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) You make that discovery with the help of God. Perhaps His satisfaction comes from helping you make that discovery.He already had that *satisfaction* eternities before you were an actualized gleam in his eye, along with whatever other *satisfactions* might accrue to him. I don't think you fully understand the negation of being that determinism encompasses. Edited March 29, 2012 by Log
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Yaaaahhhhsss. Some times the wisest thing we can do for ourselves is to step away from the quagmire of "long history of ideas" and focus instead on figuring out what works.Thanks, -Wade Englund-The ultimate irony is that when you really study the "philosophies of men" you find philosophical reasons to stop studying them. This is an excellent discussion and it isn't horribly hard to understand, I don't think.Now here's the beauty of this point of view- William James, one of the founders of Pragmatism, wrote books sympathetic to the role that spiritual experience plays in our lives, and is viewed sympathetically by LDS thinkers like Paulsen and othershttp://www.angelfire.com/az3/LDC/David%20W_%20Paulsen%20-%20The%20God%20of%20Abraham,%20Isaac,%20and%20%28William%29%20James%20-%20Journal%20of%20Speculative%20Philosophy%20132.htmRorty was himself an atheist for reasons I will get into one of these days (actually he was a strong agnostic) - but I would argue that that was because of a certain issues he had with Pragmatismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLJgnfSRQWs
Log Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) So why argue about whether it is or not?Mike,Bluntly speaking, ideas have consequences. I am perhaps underpowered when it comes to laying these things out with precision, but if determinism is held to be true, the gospel may as well be held to be false.The rest is details. Edited March 29, 2012 by Log
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Mike,Bluntly speaking, ideas have consequences. I am perhaps underpowered when it comes to laying these things out with precision, but if determinism is held to be true, the gospel may as well be held to be false.The rest is details.Yes I am aware of that. Did you follow my argument? Is there some part of it that doesn't make sense to you? Did you watch the video(s)?The entire point is the "idea" that you think "has consequences" is not even definable. It is not even a coherent idea. It is a confusion. Edited March 29, 2012 by mfbukowski
TAO Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Log, in order to call compatibilitism false, you have to define what choice is.You will find that choice can be very difficult to define.
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Incidentally, it's not "Mike".Here I prefer mf or bukowski- that works fine. Edited March 29, 2012 by mfbukowski
zeez Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 You make that discovery with the help of God. Perhaps His satisfaction comes from helping you make that discovery.We can only hope He finds some satisfaction.
Log Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 Well, MF, labelling stuff does not an argument make.
Log Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 Log, in order to call compatibilitism false, you have to define what choice is."Choice" is a lexeme. End of discussion on that point.
zerinus Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 We can only hope He finds some satisfaction.Not sure I am understanding your response.
TAO Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) "Choice" is a lexeme. End of discussion on that point.But that is the point. Without defining it, you can't determine what 'free will' is - because it is inherently based on what choice is defined as.If you can't define choice, you can't refute free will =p. Edited March 29, 2012 by TAO
Log Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 But that is the point. Without defining it, you can't determine what 'free will' is - because it is inherently based on what choice is defined as.If you can't define choice, you can't refute free will =p.Words are not the end of knowledge, but the beginning.
TAO Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Words are not the end of knowledge, but the beginning.Nah, words are the intermediary of knowledge, neither the end, nor the beginning. ;-).Still, I need to ask you what your definition, or at least, thoughts on it are, if we are at all going to communicate on the issue. What matters not is the words used; what matters is the ideas thought, that we both (hopefully) understand. Edited March 29, 2012 by TAO
Log Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 Many apologies; I am not interested in pursuing this conversation.
TAO Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Well, in that case, mfb, what is your definition of free will and choice?
wenglund Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Discovery amidst uncertainty is the sweet nectar of life. Too bad God will never get that. I feel so sorry for God.I will never again know the joy of learning to tie my shoes. Please feel my everlasting pain.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Words are not the end of knowledge, but the beginning.The only problem is that all you can tell me about what you know uses words.That's the whole problem. Direct experience is "where" we all live, but then we get on the internet and argue about words which never quite capture what we are talking about.So one gets to a point where you see how fruitless all this talking about words really is.
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Well, in that case, mfb, what is your definition of free will and choice?I don't worry about it. We all make choices every moment. I am typing this instead of doing something useful, for example!
LeSellers Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 The only problem is that all you can tell me about what you know uses words.Even thought is nearly completely dependent on words. We can't even conceive of something without a word/label to give it a place in our minds.If I think of a blue sky, I might be able to imagine one without the use of words, but the moment I want to put a cloud in it, it becomes impossible to do so without the word cloud appearing on the horizon (which requires another word). If the cloud moves or changes its shape, yet more words occur.Our realities are wholly (or very nearly so) hooked on words.Lehi
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 I will never again know the joy of learning to tie my shoes. Please feel my everlasting pain.Thanks, -Wade Englund-LOLActually I hated it. I was just learning to tie my shoes in kindergarten, and we took our shoes off for nap time. (This was in a school building which was over a hundred years old- on the East Coast) Suddenly, our class room was to be evacuated because there was some problem with the furnace in the building which they were afraid would cause a fire.I couldn't get my shoes on (in the winter) and I was sure I was going to die because I couldn't tie my shoes.Somehow I survived But it just shows how different circumstances are with different people and how memories can shape our lives. I still go crazy when I tie my shoes
Zeta-Flux Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Even thought is nearly completely dependent on words. We can't even conceive of something without a word/label to give it a place in our minds.If I think of a blue sky, I might be able to imagine one without the use of words, but the moment I want to put a cloud in it, it becomes impossible to do so without the word cloud appearing on the horizon (which requires another word). If the cloud moves or changes its shape, yet more words occur.Our realities are wholly (or very nearly so) hooked on words.LehiI suppose that this depends on what you mean by "words" but my mind does not work like this. As I work on math problems I often have an intuitive picture of what is happening. When I try to put it in words, to tell others what I am thinking, it often takes multiple iterations before it even makes any sense to someone else. I can think faster and better without words, on some occasions.
mfbukowski Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Our realities are wholly (or very nearly so) hooked on words.Absolutely. And speaking a different language even can change your reality. So much is cultural, and we are so programmed by it all, that it is very difficult to find those parts of our "selves" which are not culturally programmed.But I believe that there is something inside- the spirit- which is the seat of what we are. It is the seat of choice- it is what chooses the words we use and decides to sit here talking to you guys instead of mowing the lawn. There IS a "chooser" which makes those choices and chooses the words even if the words and thought patterns are programmed. It reminds me of a street in say, Rome. It might be a winding path that is "culturally conditioned" for thousands of years- perhaps that path was on a hillside before the city of Rome was even there thousands of years ago, yet we can choose to go down that (now) street in that city or choose another path or direction.We are stuck with the roads that exist if we want to get around, but we can choose to go down them or another, or move to Washington instead of Rome, but we CAN choose.That was probably rather cryptic. I'll have to work on that analogy.
Recommended Posts